Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government refuses to speed up the adoption of the Bloc's bill to abolish parole after only one-sixth of the sentence has been served. This bill has received the support of the Liberals and the New Democrats. While the Conservatives are dragging their feet, Vincent Lacroix has pleaded guilty to multiple charges of fraud after embezzling millions of dollars from investors.

Does this government realize that its refusal to act quickly means that Vincent Lacroix could be released after serving one-sixth of his sentence?

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly pleased to take action. I wish we could get some action out of the Bloc Québécois. We could not even get the Bloc to support mandatory jail terms for people trafficking in children. This is absolutely despicable. I said this to the Bloc before. Bloc members should stand up for all victims because that is the right thing to do in this country.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, CBC's the fifth estate reported that the government was walking away from aviation safety and security. When I raised this issue before, the minister told the House that this “is an important public role for the government...and we take it very seriously”.

Mr. Speaker, I am supported by a great team of senior officials at the Department of Transport and a lot of folks who work on the ground. I have no hesitation in saying that we need to do a much better job at listening to their concerns as we move forward with changes.

What we are doing is increasing employee screening, which is important. A lot of good work has been done in the Senate by Senator Kenny and others. We are improving background checks for employees, launching an air cargo screening pilot program and launching efforts to further restrict access to the tarmac and those crucial areas that surround airports.

Allegations that our safety and security is being breached are being treated very seriously and we are working hard to improve the situation.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has been opposed to the long gun registry since the Liberals introduced it over a decade ago. This morning I debated my private member's bill which would end the long gun registry and I look forward to opposition members voting their constituents' wishes and not being whipped on this important issue.

My question is for the Minister of Public Safety. It was with great shock that we learned that the Canadian Firearms Centre shared important information about law-abiding gun owners with a polling firm. This is a serious breach of privacy and security. Did the minister approve of this highly inappropriate polling?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her outstanding work on behalf of farmers and outdoors enthusiasts and their lawful rights.

I am very much surprised that this survey took place. I can tell the House that it was undertaken without my authority and without any consultation with me. The high cost of it at $80,000 is staggeringly poor judgment at an economic time like this.

We have been hearing from firearms owners for years that they feared their privacy would be put at risk and their privacy rights would be deprived if we had a registry like this. What they saw with this survey was exactly those fears coming true. We do not approve of that. That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, the season for the Fraser River sockeye is now long gone and so are the very fish that are the lifeblood of aboriginal communities to commercial fishermen and to sport outfitters and recreational enthusiasts alike for this resource. The government has said nothing about its disappearance. It has announced no plan to investigate, no plan to mitigate and no plan to compensate. It has done only one thing, however. It has cut the very science that is essential to understanding this dilemma and this loss of such a precious resource.

Is it true that the government's Fraser River sockeye plan for next year is to simply wait and see if these fish will come back?

Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, science has not been cut at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As a matter of fact, it has been increased.

I have been to British Columbia a number of times and have taken the time to speak to many people. I have probably met with 30 groups or more on the salmon issue in British Columbia. I have listened to their opinions and suggestions. We will take all those opinions and suggestions into consideration as we consider the best options for action.

I hope to announce the direction soon, but I think it is better to make the right decision as opposed to a hasty decision.

Tom LukiwskiParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding an incident that happened on Friday, September 18, shortly before adjournment.

On that date the member for Wascana rose to make a statement in the House, at which time he apologized for some unparliamentary remarks he made earlier this year.

You will recall that incident, Mr. Speaker. On June 10 of this year during question period, the member for Wascana, in a question directed to the Minister of Natural Resources said, referring to the minister:

Following question period on that day, I rose on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and asked you to make a ruling on whether the remarks made by the member for Wascana were unparliamentary. The member for Wascana responded, defending his words, and said that he did not believe any such words were unparliamentary.

However, to the benefit of the member for Wascana, the Friday before we adjourned for a week, late in the day I must add, the member for Wascana stood to apologize. The point is that we need to clarify something, because the statement and the apology made by the member for Wascana were extremely evasive. Again, these are the words from Hansard that are attributed to the member for Wascana:

--I am happy to withdraw any specific word on that occasion--

This is referring to the June 10 question.

--that turns out to be unparliamentary.

The member did not clarify what remarks he made that might have been unparliamentary. In fact the member for Wascana, earlier in his apology, said he still did not believe he said anything that was untoward or unparliamentary.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to make your ruling, which you have not done yet, to give direction to the House as to whether the words by the member for Wascana were unparliamentary. Since the minister to whom those unparliamentary remarks were intended is in the House today, I wonder whether the member for Wascana would rise again and apologize so she can actually hear the apology.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Ilulissat, Greenland, May 27 and 28, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114 I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade. The report is entitled “Exploring Enhanced Commercial Relations with Brazil”.